Thursday, September 18, 2014

Thursday Morning Links

- Linda McQuaig discusses how a politically-oriented audit of the CCPA fits with the shock-and-awe part of the right's war against independent (and public-minded) thought:

In the conservative quest to shape public debate in recent years, no
tool has proved more useful than the think tank. Nobody understood this
better than the director of the ultra-right wing U.S.-based ATLAS
Foundation, who once stated that his mission was “to litter the world
with free-market think tanks.”

Mission accomplished. Certainly the Canadian landscape is cluttered
with right-wing think tanks — the Fraser Institute, the C.D. Howe
Institute, the Montreal Economic Institute, the Atlantic Institute for
Market Studies, the Frontier Institute, just to name a few — all
well-funded by a business elite keen to have its message packaged in a
manner that makes it appear grounded in serious research.

These right-wing policy shops have played a huge role in implanting
an ideology that treats the rich as ‘wealth creators’ who must be freed
from government regulation — and whose goodwill must be constantly
cultivated, lest they be discouraged from investing. This has boiled
down to a simple message — government bad, private sector good — that
has become the mantra of our times, the guiding force in shaping public
policy.
...
For years, the corporate world has bestowed bountiful, tax-deductible
resources on right-wing think tanks, allowing them to baffle the public
with this sort of misinformation.

Meanwhile, alone and often ignored by the media, the Canadian Centre
for Policy Alternatives keeps churning out quality research exposing the
fallacies of the right-wing arguments that have come to dominate our
public conversation.

What choice is there for a paranoid, controlling, undemocratic, right-wing government but to call in the auditors?

- Meanwhile, Matt Bruenig argues that capitalism in its current form falls far short of any of the theoretical justifications for rewarding greed. Melissa Boteach and Shawn Fremstad note that matters are only getting worse even in the face of what's supposed to be an economic recovery. Andrew Brenier comments on the connection between fossil fuel use and inequality. And Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett discuss what we've learned since The Spirit Level brought the issue to the forefront:

Most important has been the rapid accumulation of evidence confirming
the psychosocial processes through which inequality gets under the
skin. When we were writing, evidence of causality often relied on
psychological experiments that showed how extraordinarily sensitive
people are to being looked down on and regarded as inferior.

They
demonstrated that social relationships, insecurities about social status
and how others see us have powerful effects on stress, cognitive
performance and the emotions. Almost absent were studies explicitly
linking income inequality to these psychological states in whole
societies. But new studies have now filled that gap. That inequality
damages family life is shown by higher rates of child abuse, and increased status competition is likely to explain the higher rates of bullying confirmed in schools in more unequal countries.

We
showed that mental illnesses are more prevalent in more unequal
societies: this has now been confirmed by more specific studies of
depression and schizophrenia, as well as by evidence that your income
ranking is a better predictor of developing illness than your absolute
income.

Strengthening community life is hampered by the difficulty
of breaking the ice between people, but greater inequality amplifies
the impression that some people are worth so much more than others,
making us all more anxious about how we are seen and judged. Some are so
overcome by lack of confidence that social contact becomes an ordeal.
Others try instead to enhance self-presentation and how they appear to
others. US data also show that narcissism increased in line with
inequality. The economic effects of inequality have also gained more
attention. Research has shown that greater inequality leads to shorter
spells of economic expansion and more frequent and severe boom-and-bust
cycles that make economies more vulnerable to crisis. The International
Monetary Fund suggests that reducing inequality and bolstering
longer-term economic growth may be "two sides of the same coin". And
development experts point out how inequality compromises poverty
reduction.

- Stephanie Levitz reports on the Mowat Centre's latest study of income-splitting - which finds that in addition to being grossly inequitable in handing money to the people who need it least, the Cons' pet policy would also siphon billions out of provincial treasuries.

- Connie Walker reports on the Cons' choice to summarily discard any proposals from the Assembly of First Nations and other individuals and groups who want to see both meaningful studies and policy responses to the crisis of murdered and missing aboriginal women.